carringtonfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:2017 general election
Party lists Hey guys I've been working on a party list sheet for the elections. Feel free to add stuff which I can then put on the excel sheet i'm using. And Wabba you could perhaps take names from here for the list you're making. HORTON11: • 18:19, March 18, 2017 (UTC) Lists I'm working on an excel page for that. This is just to show what i got so far. HORTON11: • 19:52, March 22, 2017 (UTC) 1) How mandy candidates are there for each party on the list? The list should actually be at least 51 (majority in the House) 2) How are Senators eleted? 3) I will add some of these names to my list, but not all of them (some of them are maybe participating for the very first time). --Wabba The I (talk) 21:04, March 22, 2017 (UTC) 1) I don't think all parties would have lists of 51 people - for example, in New Zealand, the smallest parties that won't get many seats don't have lists as long as the most major parties. 2) From an in-character standpoint, I think they are elected in individual elections per parish, not unlike American senators. 77topaz (talk) 21:17, March 22, 2017 (UTC) I am for the abolition of the Senate. You can clearly see that the current composition of this lower house is user-related, with most of them inactive. Wabba The I (talk) 21:30, March 22, 2017 (UTC) The Senate is the upper house. And yes, from an out-of-character viewpoint it was based off the same election results as the House. But that doesn't apply in-universe. 77topaz (talk) 22:18, March 22, 2017 (UTC) Oh, sorry, I always switch these ones. Wabba The I (talk) 22:24, March 22, 2017 (UTC) : Well if most people are in favor of a unicameral house then we can do so. Perhaps a referendum? HORTON11: • 19:59, March 23, 2017 (UTC) ::From an in-character perspective, I'd prefer a bicameral congress. 77topaz (talk) 21:49, March 23, 2017 (UTC) PLEASE get rid of the social anarchy party. They make no sense. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:14, March 23, 2017 (UTC) : No need to get rid but see my comment on the SAP talk. HORTON11: • 19:59, March 23, 2017 (UTC) Results Have you computed the results yet, Horton? It's been five months since the date of the election. :o 77topaz (talk) 22:18, September 22, 2017 (UTC) :I've been quite busy. But if you would like to help it would surely help with things moving along. horton11 15:42, September 23, 2017 (UTC) ::You said you wanted to use the results of the polls on the various wikis, but I'm not sure precisely what system you were intending to use. 77topaz (talk) 21:07, September 23, 2017 (UTC) :::Wanna come to chat and discuss? (Lovia). I can look forthe results I got. horton11 21:14, September 23, 2017 (UTC) ::::Here are the links: Conworlds results, Brunant results, Lovia results. 77topaz (talk) 21:32, September 23, 2017 (UTC) ::::: Here's what I got. Gave 3 points to 1 point for first to third pick in conworld, and 3 or 2 for first and second in Lovia and Brunant. horton11 18:01, September 30, 2017 (UTC) Okay. So, were you planning on directly using these results for the election results (with a multiplier to convert from 90 total seats to 100), or alter them somehow? 77topaz (talk) 20:24, September 30, 2017 (UTC) : Something like that for sure. What are your thoughts on having the GP decide to disband and integrate into ECO (ie. IC sometime in late March?) horton11 18:47, October 1, 2017 (UTC) ::In late March? Before the election, you mean? I think it would be more likely after the elections, after the original Green Party lost many seats; before the election, Rutten and a few other Wostor loyalists would have attempted to carry on the original GP. 77topaz (talk) 21:26, October 1, 2017 (UTC) :::You think? I would have imagined that extremely poor poll results might have forced them to join ECO17. From my tentative poll results, I have 26 projected seats on 6 March, 9 seats on the 15th and from the 19th 2-3 seats. But afterwards could work. horton11 22:00, October 1, 2017 (UTC) ::::I think after the election would make more sense, especially considering the short timeframe between the scandal and split and the election. Also, I'm surprised at the rise of the CvB in the results. :o 77topaz (talk) 22:03, October 1, 2017 (UTC) :::::Yeah, the fall of the GP coincides with their rise. Now they're tied for 5th with the SLP. Well a post-election merge makes sense then. Let's go with that then. I'll add my poll results to the page then. horton11 22:06, October 1, 2017 (UTC) Possible coalitions *SD-ECO-SLP-YES-GP: 50 *Grand Coalition: SD-CDU-ECO-ABB-GP: 51 *CDU-FLP-CvB-BPP: 42 horton11 14:55, October 4, 2017 (UTC) I propose SD-ECO-SLP-YES or SD-ECO-FLP or SD-ECO-FLP-YES. I would also like to work on transportation. Wabba The I (talk) 15:46, October 4, 2017 (UTC) : A coalition with FLP is a (distant, but not impossible) option, but it would not work with YES (ideological differences) or with just ECO and SD (not enough seats). More than likely it'll be a grand leftist coalition, but even there there is quite a gap between SLP/YES and ECO/SD. And on transportation, for sure, sounds good. horton11 15:53, October 4, 2017 (UTC) ::Then I prefer an SD-CDU-ECO-ABB coalition. It's only 49 seats, but the GP shouldn't return to the coalition. Btw, how are you gonna work on senators? Wabba The I (talk) 18:36, October 4, 2017 (UTC) :::The GP members are likely to join ECO. The party is finished so makes sense for them to merge in this case. @Senators- you mean their pages? horton11 18:46, October 4, 2017 (UTC) ::::I think he might mean which senator won which parish. 77topaz (talk) 19:28, October 4, 2017 (UTC) :::::Indeed, 77topaz, and I think we can all agree on a Grand Coalition? Horton on behalf of the SD, Topaz for the Greens and myself for the CDU. Wabba The I (talk) 19:36, October 4, 2017 (UTC) ::::::Well what do you guys propose. I have senate seats awarded based on the results for the house. And on a grand coalition, it could be a possibility, especially as some of the leftist parties would be unable to work with the more moderate SD. horton11 19:43, October 4, 2017 (UTC) :::::::Having SD and ECO17 in a coalition with the rather different CDU seems like it might be difficult, though. 77topaz (talk) 19:47, October 4, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::There is definitely a gap, though we would definitely need ABB in there. That a coalition with YES and/or SLP would also involve somewhat of a gap. horton11 19:53, October 4, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::I think the CDU would rather join SDP/ECO to form a government than working together with SLP/YES. Wabba The I (talk) 19:54, October 4, 2017 (UTC)